Military Review

Russian Navy is considering the possibility of a full transition to nuclear energy

74
The Russian fleet and the defense industry are considering the possibility of equipping all warships of the new generation 1 and 2 with nuclear power plants, reports Lenta.ru report with reference to a source in the DIC.




“We are talking about creating a line of standardized installations for surface ships with a displacement from 4000 tons (frigate) to 80 and more than thousand tons (aircraft carrier), with a capacity, conditionally, from 40 to 200 megawatts. Reactors of the required sizes we either already have or are developing. Taking into account the fact that the needs of the Navy in 20-1 ships of the next 2 years can be estimated at about 40 units, the production of such a number of installations will not be particularly difficult ”,
told the source.

He also noted that "3-4 rank ships (corvettes, patrol ships, small rocket ships), as well as boats and landing ships can be equipped with diesel installations, the production of which is already established in Russia."

According to the source, “the damage caused by breaking ties with Ukraine, where the USSR has been developing the production of gas turbine power plants for warships for several decades, will be very difficult to recover in a short time.”

“We need to build ships now, taking into account the aging of Soviet ships, we don’t have time to wait, and we have no right to rely on relations with Ukraine when planning construction. Under these conditions, the development of new nuclear facilities is a way to hedge, at least, ”he added.

Currently, nuclear installations are used on heavy cruisers, icebreakers and submarines.
Photos used:
Ramil Sitdikov / RIA News
74 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Wiruz
    Wiruz 7 July 2016 13: 48
    +2
    Well, why, one wonders, put YaSU on frigates? Not only will this increase their cost, but it will also increase the displacement, the number of crews, complicate the technological scheme and increase the risks for the crew with the slightest damage to the power plant!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 July 2016 13: 52
      +15
      What the industry doesn’t come up with - only to prevent gas turbine engines. smile
      It is strange that the military industrial complex has not yet proposed a nuclear power plant to replace gas turbine engines on corvettes.
      1. Roman 11
        Roman 11 7 July 2016 16: 11
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        What industry will not come up with

        Wait, with this guide we will have speed boats on fusion engines laughing ...... Miracles are like babies in utero - ebnschina has not gone anywhere, it is for a long time.
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 7 July 2016 14: 01
      +4
      In addition, it will raise the cost of the ship itself and its maintenance, entail a lot of difficulties in military campaigns (there is a fundamentally different level of arrangements for calling at the port / friendly visit).
      1. BARKAS
        BARKAS 7 July 2016 14: 15
        +10
        There is a civilian version in the form of the SEVMORPUT lighter carrier, which successfully performs its tasks in the Arctic, and several warships with a nuclear installation will definitely not interfere there.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 7 July 2016 14: 42
          +1
          Quote: BARKAS
          in the Arctic, their tasks and several warships with a nuclear installation there certainly will not hurt.
          For the Arctic, nuclear power plants are most preferable. No need to be tied to tankers, etc.
          Quote: donavi49
          will entail a lot of difficulties in military campaigns
          And not only in combat. The basing system becomes different taking into account RB: quarantine zones, observation zones, sanitary inspection rooms, etc. Large naval cities such as Severomorsk, Vladik and etc. will immediately drop out of the base system of such ships. And there is a mooring front, communications, logistics, all the developed infrastructure ...
          No, not ICE!
        2. Porcupine
          Porcupine 12 July 2016 19: 56
          0
          The Northern Sea Route was almost rotting on the quay; only the current power populism saved it.
    3. Pavel1
      Pavel1 7 July 2016 14: 53
      +8
      modern BREST nuclear reactors, which have appeared recently, are completely safe and have outstanding characteristics, such as non-waste production i.e. The spent uranium is further processed and there is much more to it. For ships of all classes, it is necessary to design a nuclear reactor of suitable size.
      https://topwar.ru/82735-atomnuyu-otrasl-rossii-zhdet-proryv.html
      http://новости-россии.ru-an.info/%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/%D0%
      B2%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B2-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B5-%D0%B1%D0
      %B5%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%
      80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80/
    4. SklochPensioner
      SklochPensioner 7 July 2016 15: 51
      +2
      Quote: Wiruz
      why, one asks, put YaSU on frigates?

      You are quite intelligibly explained in the article WHY, and even with quotes)
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 7 July 2016 16: 21
        +5
        Quote: SklochPensioner
        Quote: Wiruz
        why, one asks, put YaSU on frigates?

        You are quite intelligibly explained in the article WHY, and even with quotes)


        It’s just that the right frigates need to be built - not 3500-4000t (this topic is outdated - it has turned into a corvette), but 6000-8000t, like everyone else has. And then, together with the destroyers of 14000-18000 tons, everything falls into place.
        All new western projects are strong with radars and other equipment. This is the main cost. Then there are rockets. Range of action is also an essential quality.
        The air defense of our ships is insufficient, to say the least.
        1144 will only beat off if that.
        Maybe 22350 too (if finished).
        11356 will be beaten off if gathered together in a heap.
        At 1164, the old one-way radar even on the modernized Ustinov. Consider no nearby complex.
        The rest of the ships have all the hope for nuclear weapons.
        And in order to do everything intelligently, we need a displacement and energy.
        Hope is said to die last ..
        1. Monarchist
          Monarchist 7 July 2016 16: 51
          0
          Captain, are you a specialist or an ordinary amateur? If a specialist is a gut
        2. Rader
          Rader 7 July 2016 20: 25
          +1
          It’s just that the right frigates need to be built - not 3500-4000t (this topic is outdated - it has turned into a corvette), but 6000-8000t, like everyone else has. And then, together with the destroyers of 14000-18000 tons, everything falls into place.

          No, well, I agree, of course, that normal air defense cannot be crammed into a "small" ship ... But! Destroyers of 18kT are already a fat cruiser! I understand when the Japanese call light aircraft carriers as destroyers ... I also understand the Americans who built, built their own Zamwolt to replace the Berks, and built an expensive and controversial cruiser, for the weapon of the future, which they are about to create (for 15 years every year they say about the installation of lasers and rail guns on ships in the next 2 years ... repeat ) Come on! To hell with her with this classification! But Russia needs a massive destroyer (about 8kT). I myself am a supporter of nuclear weapons on ships of the 1st rank, but I have doubts that it will be possible to create a relatively simple and massive ship with nuclear weapons. hi
          P.S. It will be fun if in 15-20 years an atomic harbor tug is launched. During the descent, a high rank, clothed with power, will say: "... now, after the abandonment of salary and fuel oil, the prices of which have greatly increased in recent years (after all, oil prices have dropped / increased / remained the same), we will be able to reduce costs ... " wink wassat
        3. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 7 July 2016 21: 30
          0
          Quote: Alex777
          And then, together with the destroyers of 14000-18000 tons, everything falls into place.

          Arly-Berkov has a displacement of 10000 tons, their ship is classified as a destroyer. Zumvolt has a displacement of 14564 tons, although there are only 80 vertical launchers, 96 at Arly-Burke.
    5. DarkMatter
      DarkMatter 7 July 2016 17: 11
      -4
      It’s tin of course, maybe Lenta.ru is throwing a well-known substance on the fan, or interested persons are testing the ground for the opportunity to get the dough for development / production.

      Now it will be impossible to go into half (if not most) of the ports of the world, and the supplies still need to be replenished, so it makes sense.
      People need to walk on the ground just to have a moral rest.
      About the base and arrangement have already been written.
      Etc.

      It will be such a shame for Russia, cut the GTD! My opinion fool
      I still do not believe in such a development of events ...
    6. RDX
      RDX 8 July 2016 22: 46
      0
      Now YaSUs are being made miniature, of a new generation, at the price of a gas turbine engine with a minimum of maintenance staff
  2. Wiruz
    Wiruz 7 July 2016 13: 49
    +12
    I understand that the creation of its own gas turbine ran into another challenge?
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 7 July 2016 13: 54
      0
      Quote: Wiruz
      I understand that the creation of its own gas turbine ran into another challenge?

      smile
    2. x.andvlad
      x.andvlad 7 July 2016 14: 01
      -1
      Wiruz (4) KZ Today, 13:49 PM
      I understand that the creation of its own gas turbine ran into another challenge?


      And with those that are ready to give them up altogether in the near future. It is not good. It seems that we decided to rivet the cruiser with such speed that they do not have time to make the domestic gas turbine. I wonder what is missing, money or intelligence?
      1. the villain
        the villain 7 July 2016 23: 40
        0
        Quote: x.andvlad
        I wonder what is missing, money or intelligence?

        Lawrence Palych is not enough, IMHO. hi
    3. lelikas
      lelikas 7 July 2016 14: 10
      0
      Quote: Wiruz
      I understand that the creation of its own gas turbine ran into another challenge?

      Well you, everything is all right with her.
      With fear I’m waiting for an offer, to make ships of the third rank and tugs on batteries and batteries.
  3. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 7 July 2016 13: 50
    +4
    Hmm ... survived: it’s easier to make a nuclear power plant for a rank 2 ship than to master the production of gas turbine engines. smile
    Despite the fact that most of the components for these gas turbine engines are manufactured by us.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 7 July 2016 14: 24
      +11
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Despite the fact that most of the components for these gas turbine engines are manufactured by us.

      And despite the fact that almost every aircraft engine plant mastered the production of gas-based gas turbine engines based on gas turbine engines without problems. Those. when Gazprom needs them to pump out the subsoil for cutting down the dough, then at once both will and money are found. And when for the fleet ...
      1. berezin1987
        berezin1987 7 July 2016 15: 56
        +1
        It is not about money, but about the competencies of enterprises. The factory for the production of gas turbine engines for ships remained in Ukraine. Gas turbine engines at gas pumping stations operate in constant load mode, while ship gas engines must operate in the entire range of vessel speeds and respond quickly to a control signal. If everything would be so simple, now we would not think where to shove the three frigates of the 11356 project.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 7 July 2016 16: 31
          0
          Quote: berezin1987
          It is not about money, but about the competencies of enterprises. The factory for the production of gas turbine engines for ships remained in Ukraine. Gas turbine engines at gas pumping stations operate in constant load mode, while ship gas engines must operate in the entire range of vessel speeds and respond quickly to a control signal. If everything would be so simple, now we would not think where to shove the three frigates of the 11356 project.


          Another pitching adds specificity and sea water ...
          But the main thing, as it seems to me, even when they start to do it, they will not be able to immediately pull the required amount.
          And now we need everything new: frigates, and destroyers, and the BDK, and the UDC, and a whole bunch of good stuff smaller. And everything is needed yesterday.
          Weapon systems are slowly finishing up, another year or two they will work, and with gas turbine engines it’s a disaster.
          1. berezin1987
            berezin1987 7 July 2016 16: 43
            0
            Problems with gas turbine engines are quite serious and they won’t be able to be solved quickly. Although there are no ready-made ship projects with a yasa now, their development has begun recently. As a result, we have at least five ships without engines. And there is no place to buy a cargo customs declaration.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 7 July 2016 16: 55
          +1
          Quote: berezin1987
          It is not about money, but about the competencies of enterprises. The factory for the production of gas turbine engines for ships remained in Ukraine.

          Not so simple. ©
          "Zorya-Mashproekt" was, rather, not a manufacturer of gas turbine engines, but the parent enterprise that assembled gas turbines from units of both its own production and those received through cooperation. The most important thing was that in the whole USSR only "Zori" had a stand for testing ship-borne gas turbines, without which no engine could be adopted.
          Here's how the work and nodes were distributed in cooperation on the M55P engine:
          The creation of the M55R diesel-gas turbine unit has been carried out by Turborus CJSC since 1993 on the basis of the Intergovernmental Agreement between Russia and Ukraine on cooperation in the field of marine gas turbine construction. From the Russian side, the NPO Saturn OJSC (the area of ​​responsibility is the power turbine), FSUE Avrora NPO (gas turbine engine and diesel engine control systems), Kolomensky Zavod OJSC (diesel engine) participate in the cooperation on the creation of the unit; from Ukraine - GP NPKG "Zorya - Mashproekt" (turbocharger and gearbox). Tests are carried out on the basis of the Ukrainian state enterprise NPKG Zorya-Mashproekt, since in Russia there is no test bench for offshore gas turbine units in Russia.

          That is, the turbocompressor and gearbox were purely Ukrainian in this gas turbine. Plus assembly and testing.
    2. Art
      Art 7 July 2016 14: 25
      +1
      Maybe this is an indicator of our development in the nuclear field. Icebreakers and nuclear submarines are being built, an experimental fast neutron reactor has been built, not to mention conventional nuclear power plants, and they are designing a reactor for spacecraft in 1MW. So, yes it’s easier to make a reactor than a gas turbine engine
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 7 July 2016 14: 34
        -1
        Quote: Kunst
        Maybe this is an indicator of our development in the nuclear field. Icebreakers and nuclear submarines are being built, an experimental fast neutron reactor has been built, not to mention conventional nuclear power plants, and they are designing a reactor for spacecraft in 1MW. So, yes it’s easier to make a reactor than a gas turbine engine

        I’m ready to gladly accept this state of affairs if the difference between the cost of a gas turbine engine and a nuclear power plant is paid out of your personal pocket. Finally, then it will be super!
        1. Izotovp
          Izotovp 7 July 2016 14: 44
          +5
          Here, in fact, everything is not so simple, and besides the difference in the cost of production and installation of gas turbine and gas, there is also a difference in the cost of operation: autonomy, the ability to escort ships of rank 1, the total cost of fuel for gas turbines with comparable operating periods. And the energy consumption on ships is growing every year.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 7 July 2016 15: 28
      +2
      The military is interested in the unlimited progress of warships, and provisions can also be delivered by helicopters.
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 7 July 2016 16: 42
        -1
        Quote: Vadim237
        The military is interested in the unlimited progress of warships, and provisions can also be delivered by helicopters.


        Energy is even more important now. Long-range radars (such as Aegis) eat a lot. I suspect that our counterparts are even larger.
        And without finding a target for 600 km, you cannot beat it at 200.
        For example, 1164 has a range of 6500 miles (which is excellent), and his Fort's rockets hit only 96 km (which, as it were, is not very).
        And the adversaries and missiles with a launch range of> 100 km are full, and there are enough imitators that would be nice to recognize, and anti-radar missiles, 7 per aircraft (the range is also 1 km). Fort's 100 missiles won't save.
  4. aszzz888
    aszzz888 7 July 2016 13: 50
    +7
    “Ships need to be built now, given the aging of Soviet ships, we don’t have time to wait, and we have no right to count on the speedy restoration of relations with Ukraine when planning construction.

    A very weighty and fairly weighty argument. We must do it ourselves, without the ukronazists.
  5. dsm100
    dsm100 7 July 2016 13: 50
    +4
    And we have no other way out. Over time, when we can independently produce power plants that we previously purchased in Ukraine, the situation may change. Not all ports allow ships with nuclear weapons. There are certain disadvantages, but there are more advantages in the current situation.
  6. dsm100
    dsm100 7 July 2016 13: 53
    +3
    Our fleet with YASU Turks will not be allowed into the Black Sea. Here are the disadvantages.
    1. Pavel1
      Pavel1 7 July 2016 14: 55
      +3
      Quote: dsm100
      Our fleet with YASU Turks will not be allowed into the Black Sea. Here are the disadvantages


      they’ll let me, otherwise we won’t take tomatoes ...
    2. Igor V
      Igor V 7 July 2016 19: 57
      +1
      Yes, and the Baltic declared a nuclear-free zone. sad
  7. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 7 July 2016 13: 56
    +13
    Quote: dsm100
    Not all ports allow ships with nuclear weapons.

    We are not allowed into many ports even without nuclear warheads; recently there was news our ship went to one of the Mediterranean ports to replenish supplies and fuel, so NATO began to talk almost about the country's betrayal of NATO. YaU will increase autonomy. Russia, unlike the United States, does not have as many friendly ports around the world that it is possible to call in and refuel, just as it does not have as many US tanker ships.
    Ships of the 1st rank cruisers / destroyers and 2nd rank frigates are still ships of the far sea zone and should have high autonomy.
    1. Yegorchik
      Yegorchik 7 July 2016 15: 45
      +2
      Here is a sensible commentary on how it will turn around; it’s not known what other sanctions partners will come up with; it’s also unknown if the United States gets into the bottle and forbids its ships from serving the ships. The fleet with gas turbines will be tied to Russian ports or they will have to carry a bunch of tankers with them, and the fleet on nuclear installations is free and without dependence on gas stations in other people's ports, it can go to Cuba and Venezuela and go to hell.
    2. Roman 11
      Roman 11 7 July 2016 16: 31
      -2
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      Ships of the 1st rank cruisers / destroyers and 2nd rank frigates are still ships of the far sea zone and should have high autonomy.

      Dear you look at the 1st Orlan "Kirov"! How long has he been in the oceans with his nuclear reactor? It served for 10 years, then a native pier, quiet decay and disposal - isn't it not enough for this giant ?? It is difficult to imagine that such an armada, which is planned, will constantly be at sea, rather the opposite - the usual sticking out at the pier and eternal sluggish repairs. Now imagine the explosion of a reactor on some ship - and greetings from Chazhma Bay # 2 ... I don't want to pump it up, but the risks are skyrocketing, there will be much more ships than in the Soviet Union.
      1. berezin1987
        berezin1987 7 July 2016 16: 47
        +5
        The ships were bent due to lack of funding and lack of repair, and not because of a nuclear reactor. The destroyers Sarych delivered no less problems because of the boilers. I am a supporter of installing yasu on large ships.
        1. Alex777
          Alex777 31 July 2016 21: 18
          0
          Quote: berezin1987
          The ships were bent due to lack of funding and lack of repair, and not because of a nuclear reactor. The destroyers Sarych delivered no less problems because of the boilers. I am a supporter of installing yasu on large ships.

          Only from 7000t and above! wink
  8. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 7 July 2016 13: 59
    +5
    Considering that the needs of the Navy in the next 20 years in ships of rank 1-2 can be estimated at about 40 units, the production of such a number of installations will not be particularly difficult ”,

    Something I doubt that in the next 20 years we will acquire 40 ships of the Leader class and project 22350 ...
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 7 July 2016 14: 12
      +3
      Quote: Lt. air force reserve
      Something I doubt that in the next 20 years we will acquire 40 ships of the Leader class and project 22350 ...

      And no doubt - you can just be sure of it.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 7 July 2016 14: 38
        0
        Quote: lelikas
        And no doubt - you can just be sure of it.

        Well, considering how long we build nuclear submarines, how long we build the same frigates of project 22350, that doesn’t add confidence.
        What prevented Ukraine from buying for a long time more gas turbine engines (pieces 20-30)? So to speak for the future. Then the project 22350 corvettes and frigates would be built on schedule, and at this time we would develop our own gas turbine engine.
      2. Leto
        Leto 7 July 2016 14: 41
        0
        Quote: lelikas
        And no doubt - you can just be sure of it.

        How optimistic!
        The head of the department, Anton Siluanov, announced the maximum funding for the GPV project: no more than 12 trillion rubles. for 2018–2025 This figure did not suit many, including Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu and Deputy Prime Minister for the defense industry Dmitry Rogozin. ... the military said that to guarantee national security, twice as much is required, that is, 24 trillion rubles. The representative of the Ministry of Finance argued that the budget for such a rapid increase in defense spending was not calculated.
  9. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 7 July 2016 14: 05
    -3
    The photos on the splash screen at the apl were done? Nuclear reactors are good, but will they create anti-gravity ones for the Black Sea Fleet?
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 7 July 2016 14: 13
      0
      The commander of the Dolgoruky.
  10. Engineer
    Engineer 7 July 2016 14: 10
    -3
    Sad news. I still thought that in the near future the Fleet would receive the M-90FR and M-70FRU GTEs in the required quantities. But, since they are even going to put YSU on frigates, it means that they have no prospects. On cruisers and aircraft carriers, I preceded such a decision, but planning to build frigates with a displacement of 4000 tons with YSU is not just wasteful, but stupid, especially making fun of the "golden" Zamvolt.
  11. demiurg
    demiurg 7 July 2016 14: 19
    +3
    On the one hand, it is ridiculous, for 4000-5000 thousand tons of reactor. On the other hand, I remember Dollezhal's "egg", a compact reactor that could be screwed to Varshavyanka.
    I myself am the son of a nuclear scientist and captain of rank 3, everything is not as simple as it seems. lol
    Most likely, as usual, someone mixed everything up, retyping the information. Possibility to install a module with a reactor as an option.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 7 July 2016 14: 58
      +2
      Quote: demiurg
      Dollezhal's "egg", a compact reactor that could be screwed to Varshavyanka.

      It was "screwed" only 1 time and then to 651 projects.
      Quote: demiurg
      installation of a module with a reactor as an option.

      VRU-6 was intended for a course of 3-4 knots. For NK, what is this move? And to push 4000 on the surface, an appropriate nuclear power plant will be needed. Plus biological protection, etc. It turns out a normal energy compartment. Therefore, the idea with a "camomile" will most likely fail in terms of technical and economic indicators.
      IMHO
      1. VALERIK_097
        VALERIK_097 7 July 2016 17: 57
        0
        Correct installation VAU-6
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 7 July 2016 18: 07
        +1
        Quote: demiurg
        Most likely, as usual, someone mixed everything up, retyping the information. Possibility to install a module with a reactor as an option.

        Of course, it is at least strange to put a YSU on a ship with a displacement of 4000 tons, especially considering that we need to strengthen the Black Sea Fleet with new frigates and corvettes first of all. But something in this article seems strange to me ... too absurd information. More like dust in the eyes of the foe. I suppose this is misleading counting on the response of "sworn friends" in the manner of SDI on their part.
        Quote: Alex777
        and 6000-8000t, like everyone else. And then, together with the destroyers of 14000-18000 tons, everything falls into place.

        Sarych destroyers have a displacement of 6500 tons. And the same frigates of project 22350 with a displacement of 4500 tons are strange to call destroyers. Here are the Shkval project destroyers, with a displacement of 10-12 tons with the main control system and the Leader with the nuclear missile system, they are quite suitable for this concept. at 000-14 tons, these are no longer destroyers, but rather ARKs or TARKs.
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 7 July 2016 17: 09
      0
      Comrade divisional commander, how do you assess the article and the assertion of some members of the forum that nuclear weapons will sharply increase accidents and that such ships will become "cramped", after all, the ports of Vladivostok and many others fall out?
  12. Galleon
    Galleon 7 July 2016 14: 22
    +4
    Quote: dsm100
    And we have no other way out. Over time, when we can independently produce power plants that we previously purchased in Ukraine, the situation may change. Not all ports allow ships with nuclear weapons.

    A military steamer is not a civilian ship - it does not even need "to all ports", especially with nuclear reactors, autonomy will be limited only by the size of the provisions. What's the news about? "They are considering the possibility" - they should consider the possibilities: "let's calculate, learned moles, what will happen if ..." And they will translate - they will not translate when they translate ... News about stirring thoughts in the leadership of the fleet (well, they and must move there) - nothing more.
  13. Forest
    Forest 7 July 2016 15: 22
    +1
    Some countries, for lack of gas turbines, put gas turbine engines and diesel engines; for us, for lack of gas turbine engines and diesel engines, they put gas turbine engines.
    1. berezin1987
      berezin1987 7 July 2016 15: 48
      +1
      GTE in complexity exceeds YaSU. The reactor is a conventional boiler that converts the energy of the decay of uranium atoms into the energy of expanding superheated steam. And then the steam is fed to the turbine, which is connected to the gas turbine engine or generator. Russia has vast experience in operating reactors in the Navy, which cannot be said about the gas turbine engine.
      1. Forest
        Forest 7 July 2016 22: 00
        0
        Looking from which side to look. China has been digging with nuclear warheads for the fleet for a long time, there are still no normal models, but it makes excellent gas turbine engines in the hundreds for military and transport personnel a year.
    2. engineer74
      engineer74 7 July 2016 16: 01
      0
      Quote: Forest
      Some countries, for lack of gas turbines, put gas turbine engines and diesel engines; for us, for lack of gas turbine engines and diesel engines, they put gas turbine engines.

      "Lapotnaya" Russia goes its own way! wink There will also be a moment when, instead of the usual aircraft carrier, it is necessary, due to backwardness, to build a space! fellow
      As for the ship's gas turbine engine, "not everything is so simple" (c), this year, for example, test benches have already passed, however, for some reason, near Moscow ... what
  14. berezin1987
    berezin1987 7 July 2016 15: 29
    +1
    A nuclear power plant is needed on submarines, catapult aircraft carriers and missile cruisers / destroyers. All these are ships with a displacement of over 10 thousand tons. What is the point of putting jasa on a frigate?
  15. berezin1987
    berezin1987 7 July 2016 15: 41
    0
    Already laid ships will have to be built with GTA or sold them, because remaking a project under a jar is comparable to creating a ship from scratch.
  16. Resistance
    Resistance 7 July 2016 15: 50
    0
    On the icebreaker, nuclear weapons are introduced and displayed once a year, all navigation works at nominal parameters.
    On the ships of the Navy: then wind-2, then pull up the pants, then urgently reload weapons to the crane, then the iodine hole, then the promethium failure. With the naval infrastructure and the organization of BP in 5 years, all this economy will rise up (the control system of PPU and PTU will exhaust a resource, and YaB will issue a Prohibition on the use of No. ...) and die: o (
    1. berezin1987
      berezin1987 7 July 2016 16: 08
      +2
      I think that there will be less problems with reactors than with boilers of destroyers of the 956 Sarych project. Reactors with each generation are becoming more reliable and powerful.
    2. Monarchist
      Monarchist 7 July 2016 17: 17
      0
      Junior lieutenant, do you say that the YaSU at the Navy will not work?. In this case, we are thirteen
  17. Roman 11
    Roman 11 7 July 2016 15: 58
    0
    Ships need to be built now, given the aging of Soviet ships, we do not have time to wait, and we do not have the right to plan for the restoration of relations with Ukraine when planning construction. Under these conditions, the development of new nuclear plants is a way to hedge at least Amazed!!

    And who then will dispose of all this ??
    We are having difficulties with the shark scrap. "Ushakov" was also not immediately "unloaded", but he was dangerous ..... "Lazarev" was emptied. And here we are talking about 40 units !! To this will be added submarines ....... The bases in 50-60 years will have armada with nuclear debris - I do not envy the population of Vladivostok and Murmansk ...... because of "no time to wait".

    If not "no time to wait" create a production ...... and it turns out like with football - we want it here and now ..... and everyone sees how Kakorin and Mamaev bury the team, and the whole football system with ridiculous, empty and worthless leaders, figures and functionaries.

    Therefore, it’s not the buzzer that is needed by this effective top-manager, but the normal tranquil measured, unhurried, step by step work ...... as it happens with normal people and it was the way in the USSR. Honestly, I can’t understand, we had one of the strongest preparatory, scientific theoretical bases in the country, enterprises of any complexity literally grew out of nowhere, about moving almost all western industry in 1941 there is no question, but here they are "stupid" - witnesses cannot "brilliant" managers set up the production of gas turbines.
    But now it’s not the 41st, and how many production facilities in the country, in the form of all kinds of mills, factories, factories, makes various nonsense (paper bags, plastic forks, Chinese noodles, etc.) So this woodpecker blurted out his stupidity owners, from idiocy.

    Not against nuclear installations, but only for a limited number of ships of the largest displacement. The most important thing is environmental safety - we had the Hiroshima submarine, + Kursk, Komsomolets sank, and more ..... And if there is such a number of ships, then control will be weaker, from here emergencies will often arise and God forbid accidents.
    1. alstr
      alstr 7 July 2016 16: 56
      +1
      40 units is not much. At the peak we only had various types of nuclear submarines. There were about 200 large ships plus icebreakers plus a container ship plus a number of special ships.
      From the point of view of the same ecology, a modern nuclear submarine reactor is safer than any other engine, because no emission, no fuel spills, etc.
      The only negative, for such ships you need a normal basing system (but in principle it is needed for any ship).
      The fuel recovery system is now also more advanced.

      Moreover, if we keep in mind that the reactor can be placed in the volume of approximately two containers, then almost any ship can be equipped with such a facility.
  18. K-50
    K-50 7 July 2016 16: 47
    +3
    Here you need to calculate everything well.
    How much does the standard hour of operation of various types of ship power plants cost, I include the cost of fuel not only for today, but also in the long run as the cost of oil, the duration of the voyage for fuel and the need for an additional supply vessel-tanker, and there’s a lot more that can only be taken such a balanced decision. But for ships of the 1st rank, it seems to me that there is no alternative to nuclear weapons. request smile
    1. Roman 11
      Roman 11 7 July 2016 20: 28
      0
      Quote: K-50
      Here you need to calculate everything well.

      What to consider? Do you see an advantage over the number of foreign cars over ours? The vast majority seeks to take a second-hand potbelly stove than constantly repairing their own. And the same situation is with ships - repairs will be carried out mainly by power plants, and reactors, although safer, will still be reactors.

      There is one way out - to create a reliable in-house production of everything and everything .... and that normal people would do this, and not gastrobaytera and vomiters-managers. Everything will work out with us, we just need to create a company for the production of gas turbines.

      This is not an easy task, but doable. At the 1st stage, create a half-form of ownership half from the state, + 1 share, half from private owners, 2 to determine the geography according to the main shipyards of the country Peter - Murmansk, between these regions, but since it is desirable in warmer climatic conditions, then closer to Peter ... .. even farther south, closer to Novgorod, but farther from the border (you never know what) to the East ..... and further in the same channel. Surely in those latitudes there will be found some non-core bankrupt enterprise in the form of an unprofitable tobacco or textile factory of the "perestroika era". And then you can install equipment, create, manufacture, buy used (for the first time, with subsequent modernization), etc.

      Then you can begin to populate it with specialists (engineers, technologists) and workers. It is clear that the main backbone will be young people, but after all, she once built Magnitogorsk, Turksib and other construction sites of the first five-year plans. We’ll have to live for the first time in the wagons, they live in the North, it’s okay, since the country has a need, the more so the wagons are now more comfortable, not like before.

      I estimate that private business will respond to this investment, because indeed, the country has a need to produce and repair a large number of gas turbines.
  19. Arandir
    Arandir 7 July 2016 17: 26
    0
    So maybe instead of diesel-electric submarines, more boats with nuclear weapons should be riveted. It seems that the LADA project did not succeed, and when the anaerobic installation is still created and worked out.
    In general, judging by such statements, the Russian nuclear industry has made a giant leap. Or Russia got rid of some obligations and limitations unknown to us, mere mortals.
    Would have to wait for more space nuclear dvigla.
  20. Monarchist
    Monarchist 7 July 2016 17: 30
    0
    To be honest, after reading the article and the comments, my heart became melancholy: under the Union they could have pulled, and so the budget is weak + "inappropriate use." Recently on our review there was information that new ships and all types of top are being built, but it turns out that Ukraine has thrown our MF for 20 years. Their media claimed that soon our ships without their gas turbine engines would turn into trash. Is everything really so neglected?
  21. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 7 July 2016 21: 54
    +1
    When Ukraine stopped supplying gas turbine engines, it was necessary to deliver an ultimatum to the United States, Russia would not supply RD-180 engines to the United States until Ukraine resumed deliveries of gas turbine engines to Russia, so let them act on them. If you can’t persuade Ukraine, let your Arly-Berkov deliver General Electric LM-2500-30 ...
    1. clidon
      clidon 7 July 2016 22: 33
      0
      And ultimatums do not like anywhere. Would be left without orders and without engines.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 7 July 2016 22: 49
        0
        Quote: clidon
        Would be left without orders and without engines.

        Well, on what would they launch satellites into space? The United States needs years to create a similar engine. Now called 2019.
        1. clidon
          clidon 7 July 2016 23: 04
          0
          They would have pulled themselves up and ordered more Delta 4 (which is already there), would have shoved part of the orders for the Arians (which are also there), Falcons (which are also) and who knows, maybe the Japanese and the Chinese. Something would shift to the right and click on the developers.
  22. Fuzeler
    Fuzeler 12 July 2016 15: 07
    0
    where are we so much nuclear junk in 30-40 days?
    1. Porcupine
      Porcupine 12 July 2016 19: 57
      0
      cut into needles.